"24. Now, tt is uell settled that the power of the HLgh Court to issuean appropriate wit under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution is dtscretionary and the High CourT in the exerctse of its discretion does not ordinailg ossist the tardA atd the. indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there ts inordinate delag on the part oJ tLE petitioner in filing a urit petition and such delag is n.ot satisfa.torilg explained, the High Courtmag decline to interuene and grant relief in the exercise of its u,itjurisdtction.The ettohttion of this rule of taches or delag is premised upon a number of foctors.The High Court doesnot ordinailg pennit a belated resort to the ertraordinary remedg under the witjuisdiction because it is tikelgto cause confus[on and public inconuenience and bring in its trctinnew injustices. The rights of third parties may interuene and if the utrit jurisdiction is exerctsed on a Ltrtt petition filed afier unreasonabLe deLag, tt nag houe the elfect of inJlicting not onlA hardship and inconuentence but also injustice on thlrd parties. When the uritjurisdiction of the High Court is inuoked, unexptained delag coupled uith the creatlon of third partg rights n the meanuthile is an trnportant factor uthich alutags tueighs with the Htgh Court in dectding uthether or not to exercisesuch jurisdiction. we do not think it necessdry to burden thLS judgment with rekrence to uarious decistons of this court where it has been emphasized time and again that Luhere there is tnordtnateqnd unexplaineddelag and third partg ights are created in the tnterueningpeiod, the HighCoutt would decline to interfere, euet if the State action complained ofis unconstitutional or illegal. We mag onlg mention in thepo.ssirtgtttto decisions of this court one in Ramana Dagaram shetty u.International Airyort Authoritg of India((1979) 3 SCC 489) ond the otherin Asltok Kumar Mtshra u. Collector (1980) I SCC 180). uemag point out thatin R.D. Slrcttg's ca-se7, euen though the State action wash.eld tobe unconstitutional as beitg uiolcttiue of Article 14 of theConstitutlon, thts Court reJused to grant relieJ to th-e petitioner on th.eground thntthe urit petition had been fled bg the petitiorrcr more tlnn f.ue months afierthe acceptance of the tender of the Jourth respondent andduring that period the fourth respondent had instrred considerableexpenditure, oggregating to about Rs.1.25 takhs, in makingaftangements forputlittgup tle restauront <tnd. the snack bar. Of aurse, thisnlte of la.chesor delag is not a igid rute uhich can be cast in a stroit-jacket formukt, forthere magbe coses where despite delaA and creationof thirdpartg nghtsthe High Court maA stilt in the exercise ofits discretioninterkre and grant reli{ to the petitioner. But, such ca,ses tDllerethe demand of justice isso
